I Guess It's Political Evolution or Something.

I used to view myself as a fiscal conservative, meaning I wanted the government to live within its budget and not borrow money beyond its ability to pay back without putting existing programs at risk.  I also considered myself fairly liberal (or perhaps libertarian) in my view of the moral direction of society.  I didn’t think the government should be intruding into the sexual preferences of the average citizen, and there were good and just reasons for many of the social welfare programs, although they came at a cost, both in terms of total economics and social/family structure.  Essentially, I viewed my position as fairly mainstream middle-American.  If the government left me alone I would pay my taxes, live my life, and let others live theirs.  I would usually vote Republican in the Presidential races based their claims of fiscal responsibility, but not always.  On the local level up to Senator I often saw the Democratic candidate as a preferred option.

In the 2016 election I was faced with a difficult choice.  The two “mainstream” candidates were both unattractive to me.  One for his crass and demeaning manner, the other for her obvious flaws with regard to the telling the truth, her repeated hypocrisies, involvement in government subterfuge, abuse of her offices, and obvious sense of personal entitlement to the office she sought.  The third-party candidates were remarkable in their complete lack of vision for the nation.  As a result, I cast my first ever vote for “none of the above.”

On November 6, 2016 my political evolution began.  As I watched the political pundits, media, and Democratic party supporters come unhinged at the election of Donald Trump, I saw, for perhaps the first time, how truly unhinged the party and its activists had become.  I had disliked but accepted, for the eight years preceding the election, the rhetoric it had used to label the opposition as racist anytime someone was bold enough to criticize the President, the President and his party’s refusal to work in a bi-partisan manner, his placing of blame for all things on the GOP, and the fact he chose to publicly engage in the debate over local issues siding always with the minority versus the government, but figured his flaws were more ones of experience and a lack of real leadership rather than an all-out attack on the institution of our Republic.  I figured when the election was settled we would shift slightly and a continuation of the illusion of normalcy by the political elitists I had been lured into accepting would continue.  That all changed on the day after the election and has only continued to grow with each succeeding choice by the Democrats.  Their position is summed up pretty accurately with Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most recent position, saying the DNC cannot be civil until they are once again in power and can dictate the political debate.  If anyone truly believes that is the case then they are hopelessly uninformed.  If you think bullies change their approach when they are put in charge let’s look back on how the Congress last worked when the DNC controlled both the House and Senate.  Were they more civil then, or did the press just not highlight their partisanship?

I believe it was simply a matter of the popular media elites being totally onboard with the agenda being pushed by the DNC.  The elites, regardless of where they were, had all agreed to a single world view and it was nothing the hicks of middle American should have a say in.

I have no idea how our founders could have envisioned the polarization of a society as large as ours, but when they designed the relationships between the several states and our federal government, and then placed into the constitution the checks and balances they did it was absolutely brilliant.  Now we see the true colors of the Democratic party where increasingly louder voices are calling for the abandonment of the Constitution and the checks to power it provides.  Is the document out of date, or is it just it impedes their desire for unchecked power?

In about three weeks we will return to the polls to choose a new House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate.  Historically, the people have used these Presidential mid-term elections as a way to alter the course of what the federal government is doing.  If the economy is good and the majority is optimistic we see only minor change.  On the other hand, if things are not good the voters have historically altered the balance of power in the house and shifted the balance in the Senate. 

That lesson is not lost on either party, and the Democrats have been geared up to show how bad life is under President Trump, unfortunately for them the economic picture seems far better today than at any time during the Obama administration.  Then, of course, we have the pure political battles like the recent confirmation hearings for Justice Kavanaugh where the minority party pulled out every single thing they could think of to derail the confirmation.  In the process I believe they showed themselves to be unfit for office, but that is just my opinion.  We will see if others think as I do soon enough.

Perhaps the DNC is playing to what they perceive as their next generation political core, but until they can come up with another candidate like Barrack Obama who will say the right things, even if he doesn’t believe them, they will have little chance to convince middle America they should be in charge.  I think the DNC has two challenges ahead of themselves.  First, find a candidate that is not 70+ years old who can convince the big money donors they can bet on him/her.  Second, either find a way to get more millennials to vote as they are told or recognize their ranting about doing away with the Constitution is a losing proposition for people who do actually vote.

-->